House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus made hundreds of financial transactions as the stock market plummeted and spiked in 2008, sometimes turning five-figure profits in a matter of hours.

Now, he wants to ban that practice.

The sudden interest in financial ethics comes after Bachus, who sat in on high-level financial bailout meetings in 2008, was profiled in an unflattering new book and a companion “60 Minutes” piece on potential insider trading in Congress. Bachus’s new bill would require lawmakers to put their investments in blind trusts.

But here’s the kicker: The punishment for breaking the blind-trust rule, if it was enforceable, would be a $50,000 civil penalty — reminiscent of paltry pro-football fines that for years made after-the-whistle cheap shots on the quarterback seem worth the price.

Fine print aside, what the Bachus measure really shows is just how sensitive members of Congress have become to the public perception that they use their offices for personal gain. It’s just one of a bumper crop of feel-good ethics bills that have popped up as Congress’s approval ratings have cratered around the 10 percent mark.

Some lawmakers see this as a critical moment in trying to regain the trust of voters.

“We cannot survive as a democracy unless there is more confidence in our elected officials than there is now,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said Tuesday at a Financial Services Committee hearing on the STOCK Act, which takes a different approach than the Bachus bill to preventing insider trading on Capitol Hill. “The first step to restore their trust is to be trustworthy.”

But are these types of bills going anywhere? Not likely — many don’t stand a chance of passing, but they make for good press release fodder.

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) introduced a bill just before Thanksgiving that would end the congressional pension system for new members and force current members to opt-in if they want to continue to accrue benefits; Illinois Republican Tim Johnson’s “STAY PUT” bill would enact a moratorium on lawmakers using public money to take foreign trips; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to require members of Congress to disclose any tax liabilities so that their wages can be garnished; and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) wants to crack down on pay raises and foreign trips.

That’s the same McCaskill who used public funds to pay the costs of flights on a private plane that she and her husband co-owned with other investors. After POLITICO questioned McCaskill about the arrangement in March, she decided to reimburse the Treasury $88,000. Later that month, McCaskill announced that she would pay $287,273 in back taxes on the plane.

With the public angry at Congress, there’s a lot of incentive for a lawmaker to draw up a bill that limits congressional pay and benefits, even if it’s just a showpiece to demonstrate to constituents that the local congressman or congresswoman is fighting the powers-that-be on Capitol Hill.

So who could resist an effort — any effort — to clean up Congress? Well, the folks who would have to live under the new rules, of course.

In a thinly veiled swipe at “60 Minutes” and author Peter Schweizer, freshman Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-Texas) argued Tuesday that “innuendo and bad research” aren’t reason enough to approve the STOCK Act, which he said “would have the perverse effect of decreasing transparency.”

Canseco has his own solution: A resolution that would change House rules to require the use of blind trusts — a move that could happen without Senate action.

Critics across the ideological spectrum said the bill’s provisions cracking down on insider trading on Capitol Hill could have a chilling effect on lawmakers’ constitutionally protected speech.

Bachus announced Tuesday that his committee will vote on the STOCK Act next week, but he notes that current law already prohibits members of Congress — just like everyone else — from improperly using inside information to profit in stock deals.

“There is an erroneous perception that insider trading laws do not apply to members of Congress and congressional staff. That perception is unfortunate because it is false,” Bachus said in a statement. “However, legislation that clarifies and improves the existing law would be welcomed and committee members will have the opportunity to consider, debate and vote on H.R. 1148.

It’s possible that public outrage — and political need — could push legislation like the STOCK Act or the Bachus bill forward in advance of the 2012 election, but they haven’t gained that kind of traction yet.

John Wonderlich, policy director for the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, said it will be a while before the STOCK Act or any of its cousins become law.

“One of the biggest hurdles to the insider-trading bills moving soon is a lack of consensus in Congress about what the right approach is to dealing with it,” he said.

That suggests that any insider-trading rules or laws would be written by congressional leaders, who would have to sort out those varying approaches and then come to a bipartisan agreement between the chambers — a tall order under any circumstances. But for now, everyone has a bill to point to as the means to clean up Washington.

“There’s almost always a sincere intention,” Wonderlich said of the members who introduce ethics bills. “And then there’s almost always an effort to tap into populist rage at the way Congress is functioning.”